Rob Walker wrote:
> Ben> On this account, my vlan implementation, and Lenert and Gleb's
> Ben> are almost identical. Other than some internal issues, I believe
> Ben> the only user-visible difference between my imp and theirs is
> Ben> that they re-write the packet header on the way up the stack so
> Ben> that it looks **exactly** like an ethernet pkt, where as I just
> Ben> leave the header alone and pull 4 extra bytes off of the SKB
> Ben> before giving it to the higher levels.
>
> Remember how hard *BSD keeps ragging that their stack is faster due to
> "zero copy"? I can't evaluate whether that statement is true, or if
> the speed advantage has worn off with time, but I do think that the
> faster the implementation, the better.
Yeah, but remember also that Apache, not the fastest, but the most
flexible, rules the web. A compile-time switch can offer the best
of both worlds..the only question is which one to 'default' to. If
default to the zero-copy, then dhcpd and others must be fixed (there
is a patch on my web-site that is sorta-kinda fixes dhcpd.)
Of course, maybe these programs should be fixed anyway...
> Maybe a run-time switch could be added to dhcpd, or you could extend
> it to automatically read both types of frames as detected. Is this
> even possible?
I basically compared the name (vlan* matched) and used that to determine
the behavior for the interface. I'm sure a more elegant solution could
be contrived...
>
> rob
--
Ben Greear (greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) http://www.candelatech.com
Author of ScryMUD: scry.wanfear.com 4444 (Released under GPL)
http://scry.wanfear.comhttp://scry.wanfear.com/~greear